Why The Left Loves Socialism

[regent]

Since there must be fifty types of socialism it's good that posters do not have to name the type of socialism they are referring to in their posts. In the Thirties when FDR pushed Social Security it was named Marxian by Republicans and we were on our way to communism. Do any Republicans still hold to that premise that Social Security will lead America to communism?

 

[danielpalos]

critical, is the operative term. and, i am suggesting improvements to our Republic.

You don't know what you are talking about. Critical theory and critical thinking are the antithesis of of each other.

no, they are not. critique of self and government, is worth while.

Not the way that filthy cultural Marxists practice it.

nothing but the fallacy of ad hominem? how critical is that.

That's not ad homemin. Cultural Marxists are filthy. There is nothing good about them.

in other words, all you really have, is walls of text.

 

[ding]

Since there must be fifty types of socialism it's good that posters do not have to name the type of socialism they are referring to in their posts. In the Thirties when FDR pushed Social Security it was named Marxian by Republicans and we were on our way to communism. Do any Republicans still hold to that premise that Social Security will lead America to communism?

It's a little more complicated than that.

Socialism worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains its extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity towards a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

Solzhenitsyn stated it thusly, "Socialism intentionally denies examination.There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis. Socialism dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism is a reaction: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. Socialism diametrically opposes the concepts of man held by religion. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity."

 

[ding]

You don't know what you are talking about. Critical theory and critical thinking are the antithesis of of each other.

no, they are not. critique of self and government, is worth while.

Not the way that filthy cultural Marxists practice it.

nothing but the fallacy of ad hominem? how critical is that.

That's not ad homemin. Cultural Marxists are filthy. There is nothing good about them.

in other words, all you really have, is walls of text.

I have the most detailed examination of socialism ever undertake. I have quite a lot. What do you have?

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

 

[ding]

Since there must be fifty types of socialism it's good that posters do not have to name the type of socialism they are referring to in their posts. In the Thirties when FDR pushed Social Security it was named Marxian by Republicans and we were on our way to communism. Do any Republicans still hold to that premise that Social Security will lead America to communism?

I don't believe that social security will lead us to socialism. I believe materialism will lead us to socialism. I believe that socialism is like a narcotic; it is a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. FDR said something similar.

 

[danielpalos]

Since there must be fifty types of socialism it's good that posters do not have to name the type of socialism they are referring to in their posts. In the Thirties when FDR pushed Social Security it was named Marxian by Republicans and we were on our way to communism. Do any Republicans still hold to that premise that Social Security will lead America to communism?

It's a little more complicated than that.

Socialism worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains its extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity towards a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

Solzhenitsyn stated it thusly, "Socialism intentionally denies examination.There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis. Socialism dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism is a reaction: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. Socialism diametrically opposes the concepts of man held by religion. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity."

no. Only your, convoluted logic is that complicated; par for the course, from the national socialist right wing.

the liberal socialist left wing knows, socialism starts with a social contract.

 

[danielpalos]

no, they are not. critique of self and government, is worth while.

Not the way that filthy cultural Marxists practice it.

nothing but the fallacy of ad hominem? how critical is that.

That's not ad homemin. Cultural Marxists are filthy. There is nothing good about them.

in other words, all you really have, is walls of text.

I have the most detailed examination of socialism ever undertake. I have quite a lot. What do you have?

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

all you have is a fallacy of false Cause through a fallacy of composition. Our form of Socialism, is limited to the express Terms found in our social Contract.

 

[danielpalos]

Since there must be fifty types of socialism it's good that posters do not have to name the type of socialism they are referring to in their posts. In the Thirties when FDR pushed Social Security it was named Marxian by Republicans and we were on our way to communism. Do any Republicans still hold to that premise that Social Security will lead America to communism?

I don't believe that social security will lead us to socialism. I believe materialism will lead us to socialism. I believe that socialism is like a narcotic; it is a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. FDR said something similar.

We had outright communism during WWII; it was for propaganda purposes, a "joke". Only the national socialist right wing, takes it seriously in modern times.

 

[ding]

Since there must be fifty types of socialism it's good that posters do not have to name the type of socialism they are referring to in their posts. In the Thirties when FDR pushed Social Security it was named Marxian by Republicans and we were on our way to communism. Do any Republicans still hold to that premise that Social Security will lead America to communism?

It's a little more complicated than that.

Socialism worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains its extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity towards a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

Solzhenitsyn stated it thusly, "Socialism intentionally denies examination.There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis. Socialism dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism is a reaction: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. Socialism diametrically opposes the concepts of man held by religion. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity."

no. Only your, convoluted logic is that complicated; par for the course, from the national socialist right wing.

the liberal socialist left wing knows, socialism starts with a social contract.

Bull ******* shit. Liberal socialist protect their wealthy friends and screw the poor.

Right wing socialists? I never wanted the bailouts. I would have let them fail and sent the people to jail that deserved to go to jail. That way everyone could learn a lesson together. Good Lord, you have just admitted to socialism owning the bailouts. Yes, that is the stupid shit that socialism does. Socialist protect their wealthy friends and screw the poor.

 

[ding]

Not the way that filthy cultural Marxists practice it.

nothing but the fallacy of ad hominem? how critical is that.

That's not ad homemin. Cultural Marxists are filthy. There is nothing good about them.

in other words, all you really have, is walls of text.

I have the most detailed examination of socialism ever undertake. I have quite a lot. What do you have?

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

all you have is a fallacy of false Cause through a fallacy of composition. Our form of Socialism, is limited to the express Terms found in our social Contract.

That's funny because it is you who has constructed a meaningless fallacy of composition which explains and justifies nothing. Your form of socialism cannot be trusted because you cannot be trusted because socialists cannot be trusted. Socialism intentionally denies examination. Cultural Marxists seek to subordinate family, religion, God and country. They even have a set formula for doing so. In fact, it is what you are doing by defending socialism. The funny thing is that you don't really come out and expound on the virtues of socialism. That too is explainable, you are practicing the ideological subversion of critical theory where you criticize what you don't believe to justify what you do believe without out ever critically examining what you do believe. Which is BTW what critical thinking is. Critical thinking is the critical challenge of what you do believe to test the validity of what you believe.

 

[ding]

Since there must be fifty types of socialism it's good that posters do not have to name the type of socialism they are referring to in their posts. In the Thirties when FDR pushed Social Security it was named Marxian by Republicans and we were on our way to communism. Do any Republicans still hold to that premise that Social Security will lead America to communism?

I don't believe that social security will lead us to socialism. I believe materialism will lead us to socialism. I believe that socialism is like a narcotic; it is a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. FDR said something similar.

We had outright communism during WWII; it was for propaganda purposes, a "joke". Only the national socialist right wing, takes it seriously in modern times.

Bull ******* shit. We just had a ******* socialist almost win the Democratic presidential nomination. And he would have won it too if not for the DNC which conspired against him which is what was in all of those ******* emails. So your "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" argument is bull ******* shit. What's next, Ivan?

 

[sartre play]

Is it possible to love socialism and be a business owner?

That's a strong yes.

 

[Boss]

Not afraid, just never interested in fulfilling myself through fiction. I prefer to live in a non-fiction reality and focus my energy on that instead. But to each his own, I suppose.

And yet, here you are claiming that a fictional movie has shown you the light.

I think what you don't want to admit is that capitalism is not a perfect economic system. The inherent inequities in the capitalist system is what keeps Socialism alive.

You seem to be having trouble with simple words. First, you translated "lack of confidence" into "afraid of" and you weren't the first in the thread to do this. I think it's a Freudian slip. You may need to go look that one up. Next, you make the leap from "fulfillment" to "enlightenment" as if they are the same. Finally, you conflate "preferred system" with "perfect system" which I never have claimed. Nothing is perfect except perhaps God and even this is questionable.

So our problem here is your failure to understand and comprehend basic words and language. I can only hope your Klingon and Jedi is better, but I have my doubts. However, it is your type of person who is most easily duped and led astray by shiny objects like Socialist Utopia.

Now, back to Capitalism... There are various kinds of Capitalism and all of them are not good. In fact, one of the inherent flaws in Capitalism is it's tendency to become corrupted, usually through the collusion with government and power. This is why people such as myself will often use a term I'm sure you've heard but probably never actually consider, called "Free Market" Capitalism. You see those two words have great significance. It is the "free market" distinction that makes Capitalism the best economic system man has ever devised... not "perfect" but the best man can do.

 

[Boss]

Mistakenly attributed NASA spinoffs

The following is a list of technologies sometimes mistakenly attributed directly to NASA. In many cases, NASA popularized technology or aided its development, which ultimately resulted in the technology's creation.

If you will go back and re-read what I posted, this is exactly what I argued. Trying to change my argument into something you can defeat is an intellectually dishonest game. I never claimed NASA invented or developed these things, I merely pointed out their development (and/or improvement) was largely the result of knowledge and technology gained through the space program. You simply CONFIRMED my argument... Thank you!

you are the dishonest one, you said I simply would not have the microchip and that is patently false

No, I actually said there are a lot of products you wouldn't have because they wouldn't have been invented. I listed the microchip as an example of a technology advanced by the space program. That is true, as your own link points out. You can try and change my argument but I am not obliged to defend arguments I never made.

 

[regent]

Since there must be fifty types of socialism it's good that posters do not have to name the type of socialism they are referring to in their posts. In the Thirties when FDR pushed Social Security it was named Marxian by Republicans and we were on our way to communism. Do any Republicans still hold to that premise that Social Security will lead America to communism?

I don't believe that social security will lead us to socialism. I believe materialism will lead us to socialism. I believe that socialism is like a narcotic; it is a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. FDR said something similar.

We had outright communism during WWII; it was for propaganda purposes, a "joke". Only the national socialist right wing, takes it seriously in modern times.

Bull ******* shit. We just had a ******* socialist almost win the Democratic presidential nomination. And he would have won it too if not for the DNC which conspired against him which is what was in all of those ******* emails. So your "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" argument is bull ******* shit. What's next, Ivan?

One form of socialism is called Christian socialism.

 

[ding]

Since there must be fifty types of socialism it's good that posters do not have to name the type of socialism they are referring to in their posts. In the Thirties when FDR pushed Social Security it was named Marxian by Republicans and we were on our way to communism. Do any Republicans still hold to that premise that Social Security will lead America to communism?

I don't believe that social security will lead us to socialism. I believe materialism will lead us to socialism. I believe that socialism is like a narcotic; it is a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. FDR said something similar.

We had outright communism during WWII; it was for propaganda purposes, a "joke". Only the national socialist right wing, takes it seriously in modern times.

Bull ******* shit. We just had a ******* socialist almost win the Democratic presidential nomination. And he would have won it too if not for the DNC which conspired against him which is what was in all of those ******* emails. So your "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" argument is bull ******* shit. What's next, Ivan?

One form of socialism is called Christian socialism.

Sure. The Gnostics are a good example of that, and others too.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

 

[Boss]

Who won the Moon Race; the socialism of Government or capitalists with private property?

Well, since the USSR was the Socialist system and the USA was the free market Capitalist system, I will go with the Capitalist system. You can keep up this falsehood that all governments are socialist but that argument has already been debunked and I won't continue to point it out. All government is not socialist. Sorry.

 

[danielpalos]

Since there must be fifty types of socialism it's good that posters do not have to name the type of socialism they are referring to in their posts. In the Thirties when FDR pushed Social Security it was named Marxian by Republicans and we were on our way to communism. Do any Republicans still hold to that premise that Social Security will lead America to communism?

It's a little more complicated than that.

Socialism worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains its extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity towards a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

Solzhenitsyn stated it thusly, "Socialism intentionally denies examination.There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis. Socialism dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism is a reaction: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. Socialism diametrically opposes the concepts of man held by religion. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity."

no. Only your, convoluted logic is that complicated; par for the course, from the national socialist right wing.

the liberal socialist left wing knows, socialism starts with a social contract.

Bull ******* shit. Liberal socialist protect their wealthy friends and screw the poor.

Right wing socialists? I never wanted the bailouts. I would have let them fail and sent the people to jail that deserved to go to jail. That way everyone could learn a lesson together. Good Lord, you have just admitted to socialism owning the bailouts. Yes, that is the stupid shit that socialism does. Socialist protect their wealthy friends and screw the poor.

like right wing socialists don't?

 

[ding]

Since there must be fifty types of socialism it's good that posters do not have to name the type of socialism they are referring to in their posts. In the Thirties when FDR pushed Social Security it was named Marxian by Republicans and we were on our way to communism. Do any Republicans still hold to that premise that Social Security will lead America to communism?

It's a little more complicated than that.

Socialism worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains its extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity towards a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

Solzhenitsyn stated it thusly, "Socialism intentionally denies examination.There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis. Socialism dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism is a reaction: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. Socialism diametrically opposes the concepts of man held by religion. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity."

no. Only your, convoluted logic is that complicated; par for the course, from the national socialist right wing.

the liberal socialist left wing knows, socialism starts with a social contract.

Bull ******* shit. Liberal socialist protect their wealthy friends and screw the poor.

Right wing socialists? I never wanted the bailouts. I would have let them fail and sent the people to jail that deserved to go to jail. That way everyone could learn a lesson together. Good Lord, you have just admitted to socialism owning the bailouts. Yes, that is the stupid shit that socialism does. Socialist protect their wealthy friends and screw the poor.

like right wing socialists don't?

There are no right wing socialists, amigo. There are only left wing socialists. Why else do you think they paid Hillary more than a nurse makes in 10 years for giving a 20 minute speech?

 

[danielpalos]

Who won the Moon Race; the socialism of Government or capitalists with private property?

Well, since the USSR was the Socialist system and the USA was the free market Capitalist system, I will go with the Capitalist system. You can keep up this falsehood that all governments are socialist but that argument has already been debunked and I won't continue to point it out. All government is not socialist. Sorry.

Nice try, but that Only works in elementary school. Government is socialism. SpaceX needs to go to the Moon and make a profit.